The point is that companies can easily survive a high turnover rate at the top if that's what needed to find the right ones. If their are members at the top who demand or expect bonuses at a time when everyone else is giving back then regardless of their 'talent' they are not worth it. The damage it does to the masses overwhelms any possible benifit that their talents could contribute. Its probably more ego and arrogance than talent anyhow.
Dave want's more $$$$
- Thread starter cat 111
- Start date
[P][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Who knows, maybe Dave Siegel will leave the company.[/FONT][/P]
[P][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Chip[/FONT][/P]
[P][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Chip[/FONT][/P]
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/25/2002 5:12:10 PM chipmunn wrote:
[FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3]Who knows, maybe Dave Siegel will leave the company.[/FONT][/P]
[FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3]Chip[/FONT][/P]
----------------
[/blockquote]
with a chute spun form the finest gold
or would that be green?
----------------
On 10/25/2002 5:12:10 PM chipmunn wrote:
[FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3]Who knows, maybe Dave Siegel will leave the company.[/FONT][/P]
[FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3]Chip[/FONT][/P]
----------------
[/blockquote]
with a chute spun form the finest gold
or would that be green?
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/25/2002 5:12:10 PM chipmunn wrote:
[FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3]Who knows, maybe Dave Siegel will leave the company.[/FONT][/P]
That puts the patients in charge of the insane asylum.....
----------------
On 10/25/2002 5:12:10 PM chipmunn wrote:
[FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3]Who knows, maybe Dave Siegel will leave the company.[/FONT][/P]
That puts the patients in charge of the insane asylum.....
If Carty did I would look at it as a sign of weakness. If the vision and his leadership are sound ANY manager that is not willing to go along is expendable. Right now the company is demanding cuts from all its workers. It has receieved those cuts. For a few individuals, especially in upper management to require bonuses to play along indicates that not all at the top are confident in the ability of the company to turn around. We all know that if U makes a successful comeback that those at the top will be well rewarded. Demanding bonuses in order to stay indicates that they feel that that day will not come. If they are not willing to take the risk why should anyone else?
KCFlyer
Veteran
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/25/2002 4
07 PM UAL777flyer wrote:
[P]I'm not so sure companies can easily survive a high turnover rate at the top. Changing CEO's often entails bringing in someone with a different vision for the company and a different strategic direction. In the case of airlines, it can throw things into turmoil pretty easily in the short-term as focus is shifted to other priorities and changes made. However, there is certainly some merit in your comments.[BR][BR]As for demanding bonuses, I'm pretty sure it's more along the lines of Siegel recognizing the possibility of losing some of his key people at a time when US can ill afford it. So therefore, he convinced the court to earmark the bonus money.[BR][BR]Once again, I am not saying I agree with this type of program. In fact, I'm against it. It stinks and it sends the wrong message. But considering the circumstances under which the program was instituted, I can understand why Siegel felt it was necessary. You can bet your pal Carty would do the exact same thing if AA were ever in such a situation.[/P]
[P]----------------[/P]
[P]In good times, that's true...a new CEO or other key exec may have a different vision. But it would appear to me that any exec coming into a bankrupt carrier has but one key vision - emerging with a viable company. I will save current and future execs a ton of time and money...my proposed vision and mission statement:[/P]
[P][STRONG]Vision Statement: Get the @$%* company out of bankruptcy[/STRONG][/P]
[P][STRONG]Mission Statement: To operate an airline that provides value to the customer, security to the employees and makes a profit.[/STRONG][/P]
[P]With that out of the way, they can now concentrate on saving the airline. Heck, they might even get a new key executive that shares my view...restructure fares and even TRY seeing if that has any impact on increasing revenues. Bottom line, they've got a bunch of top level executives who are currently looking thru the cost cutting tunnel and ignoring the fact that they've already just done all that. If their vision didn't see that gaining the current cuts wasn't going to work, then, IMHO, they might need corrective lenses.[/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/25/2002 4
07 PM UAL777flyer wrote:[P]I'm not so sure companies can easily survive a high turnover rate at the top. Changing CEO's often entails bringing in someone with a different vision for the company and a different strategic direction. In the case of airlines, it can throw things into turmoil pretty easily in the short-term as focus is shifted to other priorities and changes made. However, there is certainly some merit in your comments.[BR][BR]As for demanding bonuses, I'm pretty sure it's more along the lines of Siegel recognizing the possibility of losing some of his key people at a time when US can ill afford it. So therefore, he convinced the court to earmark the bonus money.[BR][BR]Once again, I am not saying I agree with this type of program. In fact, I'm against it. It stinks and it sends the wrong message. But considering the circumstances under which the program was instituted, I can understand why Siegel felt it was necessary. You can bet your pal Carty would do the exact same thing if AA were ever in such a situation.[/P]
[P]----------------[/P]
[P]In good times, that's true...a new CEO or other key exec may have a different vision. But it would appear to me that any exec coming into a bankrupt carrier has but one key vision - emerging with a viable company. I will save current and future execs a ton of time and money...my proposed vision and mission statement:[/P]
[P][STRONG]Vision Statement: Get the @$%* company out of bankruptcy[/STRONG][/P]
[P][STRONG]Mission Statement: To operate an airline that provides value to the customer, security to the employees and makes a profit.[/STRONG][/P]
[P]With that out of the way, they can now concentrate on saving the airline. Heck, they might even get a new key executive that shares my view...restructure fares and even TRY seeing if that has any impact on increasing revenues. Bottom line, they've got a bunch of top level executives who are currently looking thru the cost cutting tunnel and ignoring the fact that they've already just done all that. If their vision didn't see that gaining the current cuts wasn't going to work, then, IMHO, they might need corrective lenses.[/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]
If Carty did I would look at it as a sign of weakness. If the vision and his leadership are sound ANY manager that is not willing to go along is expendable. Right now the company is demanding cuts from all its workers. It has receieved those cuts. For a few individuals, especially in upper management to require bonuses to play along indicates that not all at the top are confident in the ability of the company to turn around. We all know that if U makes a successful comeback that those at the top will be well rewarded. Demanding bonuses in order to stay indicates that they feel that that day will not come. If they are not willing to take the risk why should anyone else?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank You Mr. Owens
For once I agree with this guy!
Remember Lee Iacocca and what he worked for to turn Chrysler around, NO bonus there and he worked for one dollar at the start.
Trying to justify any bonuses this company pays out while EVERY SINGLE labor group are forced fed BIG give backs is insanity. Even the messenger, “a manager†who was explaining the bonus was greeted with boo-hoo at the road shows. This outcry was clearly heard all the way to top management without any rectification or admission of an error in judgment, which it CLEARLY was! If HIGHLY paid individuals are required to come in here and butcher this company with tons of job cuts all the while shrinking into oblivion and leaving remaining employees depressed to the point of suicides, well then, it’s clearly evident to this guy along with MANY of my co-workers to move on with your life leaving this insanity a distant memory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank You Mr. Owens
For once I agree with this guy!
Remember Lee Iacocca and what he worked for to turn Chrysler around, NO bonus there and he worked for one dollar at the start.
Trying to justify any bonuses this company pays out while EVERY SINGLE labor group are forced fed BIG give backs is insanity. Even the messenger, “a manager†who was explaining the bonus was greeted with boo-hoo at the road shows. This outcry was clearly heard all the way to top management without any rectification or admission of an error in judgment, which it CLEARLY was! If HIGHLY paid individuals are required to come in here and butcher this company with tons of job cuts all the while shrinking into oblivion and leaving remaining employees depressed to the point of suicides, well then, it’s clearly evident to this guy along with MANY of my co-workers to move on with your life leaving this insanity a distant memory.
